Aren't Federer's 5 straight RG SF a record in the open era? And if it wasn't for Nadal he would have like 5 RG.

Click to expand...

I think 6 is a good assessment. Federer did run into the clay goat, however we can't magically gift players slams based on who they faced or did not face. 1 slam + 5 finals should put him in the 2-3 slam winner range .

6 is not shabby though. # 1 on hard courts , # 1 on grass (with Sampras) and # 6 on clay. Cant think of a player who wouldnt take that resume.

I think 6 is a good assessment. Federer did run into the clay goat, however we can't magically gift players slams based on who they faced or did not face. 1 slam + 5 finals should put him in the 2-3 slam winner range .

6 is not shabby though. # 1 on hard courts , # 1 on grass (with Sampras) and # 6 on clay. Cant think of a player who wouldnt take that resume.

Click to expand...

QFT. I've have him at #7.

Some people just ignore the fact that Nadal is a clay goat and he's playing in this era. Not in the 60s, 70s or 90s. Federer is 2nd best behind him, and any past player who play along with Nadal can only be 2nd best(that's include borg, lendl, guga, rosewall). Had Nadal was just an average cc and Fed doesn't have a great run since 2005, I can understand he can't be in the top 10.

Anyway, if you've posted Fed as #6 in the former pro player talk forum, the old-timers will say you're too young, too ignorant, no experience and thus not good enough to come up with assessment. Haha

well apparently rogers winning percentage at the french open is 80.6 percent which is a smidgen less than the 3+FO winners. roger has won 10 clay tournaments. lendl and wilander have won 28 and 20 respectively. so i dont think federer can be put above the 3 time champions for open era
1-nadal
2- borg
3- lendl, wilander
5- kuerten
6- vilas, muster, federer

thats true but kuerten was still a 20-30 ranked player and federer only had 2 gs tournaments under his belt at the time so i dont think the result was that shocking. bleacher report ranks federer 5th on clay of all time, giving kuerten and vilas an honorable mention
1. nadal
2. borg
3. lendl
4. wilander
5. federer

I would put him behind 2 time winners but with an asterisk. Given the number of other titles and the number of times he has lost to Nadal in the semis or finals, its not unfair to consider Fed to have been unlucky in playing in the same era as the clay court GOAT. He might have dominated clay in any other era.

He has more finals, but Nadal actually beat Fed and Novak in hard court slams.

Click to expand...

Beat past his prime Federer in hard court slams. How many hardcourt titles has Federer won with Nadal in the draw? If Nadal wasn't even good enough to reach Federer it's a bit unfair to cite the head to head.

Beat past his prime Federer in hard court slams. How many hardcourt titles has Federer won with Nadal in the draw? If Nadal wasn't even good enough to reach Federer it's a bit unfair to cite the head to head.

Click to expand...

AO isnt really a true hard court so to speak
it plays slower than Roland Garros

On level of play on clay he's #2 or #3. His level of play on clay is higher than Muster, Bruguera, Lendl, Wilander, and most likely he would have taken out Borg regularly. But level comparisons are complicated by equipment changes. Borg would have been better had he grown up with larger headsizes and used copoly strings, but we'll never know how good. He definitely would not have had the power of Federer or Nadal. He would have been something like a faster, more accurate Ferrer. Would that be good enough to beat Nadal and Fed on clay?

On claycourt record alone Fed is top-10 all-time on clay.

Combining level and record, taking into account that the majority of his claycourt losses have come at the hands of the claycourt GOAT, and he's #3.

Beat past his prime Federer in hard court slams. How many hardcourt titles has Federer won with Nadal in the draw? If Nadal wasn't even good enough to reach Federer it's a bit unfair to cite the head to head.

Somewhere from 8-15 all time. Most likely just outside the top 10 all time at 11th or 12th. Open Era alone I would rank him 6th behind Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander in that order. There is no argument whatsoever for him being higher than 6th in the Open Era, but one could argue him being lower than Muster or Courier, and thus arguably lower than 6th.

Click to expand...

While I agree with this overall, no way would I rank Muster ahead of Fed at this point, 5 FO finals compared to getting past QF twice and one final is just too much of a gap IMO even if we presume Muster's peak level on clay was better than Fed's (which is something I personally think).

Courier is a different matter, I think he's underrated as a claycourter, one could certainly argue he should be ranked higher than Fed on clay.

I agree that Federer is ahead of Muster in the clay court pecking order. I also agree that Muster's peak level on clay from 1995-1996 when he won had a spell of 99 wins out of 102 on the surface was better than Federer's.

However I think that even a peak level Muster would find Federer to be a pretty horrible match-up on clay. I think that Muster would have far more problems facing Federer on clay, but would get the better of Djokovic more often than not.

I agree that Federer is ahead of Muster in the clay court pecking order. I also agree that Muster's peak level on clay from 1995-1996 when he won had a spell of 99 wins out of 102 on the surface was better than Federer's.

However I think that even a peak level Muster would find Federer to be a pretty horrible match-up on clay. I think that Muster would have far more problems facing Federer on clay, but would get the better of Djokovic more often than not.

While I agree with this overall, no way would I rank Muster ahead of Fed at this point, 5 FO finals compared to getting past QF twice and one final is just too much of a gap IMO even if we presume Muster's peak level on clay was better than Fed's (which is something I personally think).

Courier is a different matter, I think he's underrated as a claycourter, one could certainly argue he should be ranked higher than Fed on clay.

Click to expand...

I didnt say I would rank Muster above Federer on clay. I only said one could definitely make an argument to rank Muster above Federer on clay and it wouldnt be at all unreasonable. Muster had 2 years he was far and away the Worlds best clay courter. Federer never was this. Muster also has won Rome and Monte Carlo, the 2nd and 3rd most prestigious clay court events, twice each. Federer has never won Rome or Monte Carlo. Lastly while I dont think the numerous tiny clay titles should be overemphasized it is still worth noting he has 40 clay titles.

I didnt say I would rank Muster above Federer on clay. I only said one could definitely make an argument to rank Muster above Federer on clay and it wouldnt be at all unreasonable. Muster had 2 years he was far and away the Worlds best clay courter. Federer never was this. Muster also has won Rome and Monte Carlo, the 2nd and 3rd most prestigious clay court events, twice each. Federer has never won Rome or Monte Carlo. Lastly while I dont think the numerous tiny clay titles should be overemphasized it is still worth noting he has 40 clay titles.

Click to expand...

Just so we know, which of the *three* titles (each) Muster won at MC and Rome are you asterisking? The '92 demolition of Krickstein in MC and the '90 execution of Chesnokov in Rome, I imagine?